how-to block ads
|
Markus
join:2005-05-27
Middlesboro, KY
| The Way the Internet Should Be
Ideally, the internet and how we access it should work much like television does now. You hop on your PC—or whatever internet-enabled device you happen to be using—and you use it however you see fit, as much as you want, without having to worry about things like getting throttled.
That's ideally, however. I suspect it will be quite a long time before all the relevant technologies advance to the point where the internet truly becomes just another appliance that's no more hassle and requires no more thought to use than your microwave. | |
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
 ·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| They do need to upgrade their networks. Video is demanding it.
Blocking traffic might block legitimate traffic then someone could sue. I see that coming. Charging websites is ridiculous since bandwidth is already paid. Google doesn't use much bandwidth anyway. YouTube does but not Google search--cleanest search on the Net compared to Yahoo's bloated website.
Hope Microsoft makes Yahoo peeps richer--other than an OS for desktops, what do I need M$ for? And, Vista can be shoved right up Ballmer's a@@. I'd rather have Windows 95 that Vista. Only ME was worse. Linux servers are the best anyway.
If VZ can spend billions on FIOS, everyone else can upgrade their networks. Wonder when AT&T's UVerse is called a failure what their shareholders will say? Fire the management. Cox has caps but I violate them every month by double and never hear a word. Why? They built a big network here. However, they can cut you off for Kazaa and Bittorent illegal downloads and uploads however (called "misusing the network").
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
TheMG
join:2007-09-04
Edmonton, AB
·TELUS
| reply to Markus
You can't compare TV with internet in the way you just did.
TV is a very regulated medium, while the internet is relatively free.
By saying that the internet should be like TV, you're essentially implying that the government, FCC/CRTC and corporations should dictate what goes on the internet and what does not.
Yeah, oops. | |
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs:
·Embarq
 ·linode
1 edit | I think you took the TV comment way out of context.
I think the point was, when you turn on your TV, and you watch it all day, non-stop, you never get the idea in your head, that you are somehow abusing the TV system.
Something I think the internet as a whole needs, is more friendly relationships between providers, and many more peering points, and relationships. It's pretty crazy, when I have two ISPs in my house, and when I wish to send data across one gateway to the other, that it has to travel so far and back again, to get to the other. It seems odd to me, we don't have a lot more peering points, that would enable a much more local exchange, such as in my example.
edit: typo
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
TheMG
join:2007-09-04
Edmonton, AB
·TELUS
| said by gatorkram  :I think they point was, when you turn on your TV, and you watch it all day, non-stop, you never get the idea in your head, that you are somehow abusing the TV system. But the TV and the internet are very different in that regard too. With TV, you can have as many people watching simultaneously as you can connect to the network.
In the cable TV example, you can simply connect more people by the use of signal repeaters and splitters. The load on equipment is the same regardless of how many people are watching, every single TV set in a city can be turned on and tuned in without any effect on the load and the quality of service.
With the internet it's totally different. The more people you have using it the more the load increases on every piece of equipment upstream from the users. If everyone started using their full 5-10mbps 24/7, all hell would break loose. | |
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
| reply to supergirl
said by supergirl :They do need to upgrade their networks. Video is demanding it. Blocking traffic might block legitimate traffic then someone could sue. I see that coming. Charging websites is ridiculous since bandwidth is already paid. Google doesn't use much bandwidth anyway. YouTube does but not Google search--cleanest search on the Net compared to Yahoo's bloated website. Hope Microsoft makes Yahoo peeps richer--other than an OS for desktops, what do I need M$ for? And, Vista can be shoved right up Ballmer's a@@. I'd rather have Windows 95 that Vista. Only ME was worse. Linux servers are the best anyway. If VZ can spend billions on FIOS, everyone else can upgrade their networks. Wonder when AT&T's UVerse is called a failure what their shareholders will say? Fire the management. Cox has caps but I violate them every month by double and never hear a word. Why? They built a big network here. However, they can cut you off for Kazaa and Bittorent illegal downloads and uploads however (called "misusing the network"). Your comments always get a laugh out of me. LOL, esp. the part about someone suing for throttled internet. And if Verizon wants to spend billions in the RED they can, but why should other companies go bankrupt. I think u have some good points but i dout u actally run a Linux server for a living. I run both MS and Linux servers (12 all together). They both work great for there respected duties. So, to just say Linux is better, makes you seem ignorant. Yes Linux servers are better at certain things but not all.
P.S. The ISP's upgrade networks on the majority need. Although i think Verizon is doing a good thing for the consumer. The company will be in the RED for a long time. | |
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs:
·Embarq
·linode
| reply to TheMG
You are missing the point... You read the words, but you decide what meaning come out of them.
My point would be, using your TV, or the internet, shouldn't lead one to feel as though they are somehow abusing the system, because they enjoy it one way or another.
Just because the systems don't work the same, to the end user, they are no different, and frankly, no one should have to worry about how much, or how little they use them.
After all, both systems are more or less sold in the same manner, TV could just as easily have small text some place, telling you not to watch more than X hours a week, just like some internet service providers hide usage limits in small text.
Sooner or later, the average users will catch up with the heavy users, in what they expect for their dollars.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
ftth_freak
join:2005-06-17
Ballwin, MO
| reply to Markus
Well just how uch would you be willing to pay for unlimited bandwidth usage?
I own a small cable system and prvide cable modem service to about 1000 homes. When I see any of my customers allowing their comp to be an uplaod server I just shut thier modem OFF. When they call in I tell them if they continue to do they can go somewhere else for hi-speed service.
Like the big boys, It's my network, I pay for the bandwidth, I am responsible to make sure everyone gets the service they subscribe to, not just a few folks who like to steal music and video. Ultimatley, BIT TORRENT and other p2p services should pay me to allow thier my customers to turn their computers into a server. I'll have more to say later. | |
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to TheMG
Yes, the internet IS different. Didn't you read the article about the increased SPEEDS they keep offering. The solution, however, is VERY SIMPLE. Don't SELL what you can't provide. If they are only CAPABLE of serving 1Mb/sec, then SELL 1mb/sec. If 100% of their users are using 1Mb/sec, and they have the ability to PROVIDE 1Mb/sec, then there is no problem. However, if they SELL 10mb/sec, and they can only PROVIDE 1mb/sec, then, of course, EVERYONE is unhappy.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
1 edit | reply to ftth_freak
I hope you have that stated in your TOS, otherwise any user you disconnected could sue you.
EDIT- Also, bittorrent is a PROTOCOL, do you think whoever invented TCP/IP should pay you because of all of the massive amounts of TCP traffic over your network? | |
Cthen
join:2004-08-01
Ypsilanti, MI
·Comcast
| Well have to remember here that this is BBR. That poster is only claiming they own a cable network. Which I find a really odd thing to claim with a user name that starts with FTTH lol.
But hey, I guess coming here with no credentials I can say that I own Comcast and Verizon. I just put em against each other just to see what fun turns up.  | |
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to TheMG
said by TheMG :With the internet it's totally different. The more people you have using it the more the load increases on every piece of equipment upstream from the users. If everyone started using their full 5-10mbps 24/7, all hell would break loose. That depends on what they are doing. Multi-Cast streaming (at least IPv6 Multi-Cast) does not put the load that other uses do since it is more of a Broadcast process with only one stream flowing over the subnetwork no matter how many people are receiving it (IPv4 DOES have separate streams per user so it acts more like normal usage). | |
DownTheShore
Tar and Feather Joe Lieberman
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
clubs:
| reply to gatorkram
I got your point, gatorkram. We should view them both as an appliance, to be turned on and used at will. They are just "there" to be used - not to worry about how much we are using them, or what we are using them for. The only concern should be ease of use and ready access - not content monitoring, throttling, or whatever.
Expand the networks to meet the need, instead of trying regulate usage to save capital expenditure. Those companies who can't or won't should be subsumed by those who have the foresight to see what future needs will be. Computer usage should be ubiquitous, not worrisome.
--
Life is simply one damned thing after another. | |
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | reply to gatorkram
You are abusing TV the more you watch it. The more TV you watch, the less each ad impression is valued. We need to goto congress and demand laws to stop the ransacking and piracy of the value of ad impressions. | |
ftth_freak
join:2005-06-17
Ballwin, MO | reply to Boogeyman
Thats a typical liberal reply..."I'll sue you" | |
ftth_freak
join:2005-06-17
Ballwin, MO | reply to Cthen
I am going to build out the rest of my cable plant with FTTH, because it's clearly the best solution for bandwidth delivery to the home. I will still own the netowrk and manage it the way I see fit. | |
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to RARPSL
Multicast would solve all ALOT of P2P traffic. Problem is, the IANA has turned Multicast into a impossibly expensive to reach system, and its unscalable, since it has a concept of "groups" which have to be registered on all the routers on the internet, and then torn down, eating router performance like crazy. Also you need a special IP to "send" your packets to, that special IP represents all the IPs that want to receive your packet. Next almost all domestic ISP's routers can not see multicast and don't forward them.
Solution, although its not pretty, is »tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5058 Explicit Multicast, where the destination of the packet are in the packet. Zero state information needed by routers, they just send the packet out on 2/3/4/etc different ports when they see it. Then there is the 1500 byte packet limit. If the routers don't strip "unneeded" IPs from the packet, the last mile will be less efficient (the packet you get contains many other IPs), but through the internet core it would be much more efficient, since the data only travels only once through any router anywhere. There is a point where a group makes sense because of the insane overhead if you stuff a packet entirly with destination IPs and and only a couple bytes of data. For example, I cooked up this formula that says how many MB someone will have to download
((([file size]/(1500-16-(4*[IPs that receive this packet])))-([file size]/(1500-20)))*1500)/(1024*1024)
A UDP+IP4 header is 20bytes (includes 1 destination IP), for Explicit Multicast, I assume each additional IP eats up 4 bytes of 1500 of each packet (the world runs off ethernet doesn't it?), im ignoring any bytes/bits for number # of IPs included in the header, but 2 bytes is all you need to give you an unrealistic 65000 IPs in the header.
Also I'm ignoring any header gains through IP header compression, but I don't feel like reading how that works, and thats best case scenario.
But with our formula, with a 700MB CD, and 10 users, each user will get a low 16 MB of overhead. (blame google calc for spaces)
(((700 000 000 / (1 500 - 16 - (4 * 10))) - (700 000 000 / (1 500 - 20))) * 1 500) / (1 024 * 1 024) = 16.8679761
but with 190 users we will double our overhead (706MB overhead), actually, have more overhead than file.
(((700 000 000 / (1 500 - 16 - (4 * 190))) - (700 000 000 / (1 500 - 20))) * 1 500) / (1 024 * 1 024) = 706.49794
and at the extreme maximum of 371 destination IPs, we have a jaw dropping 249 GB of overhead
(((700 000 000 / (1 500 - 16 - (4 * 370))) - (700 000 000 / (1 500 - 20))) * 1 500) / (1 024 * 1 024) = 249 662.915
Remember, for a uploader, this will take a month/months to upload this even though in theory you are saving SOME bandwidth.
700 * 371 = 259,700MB conventional way
700 MB to 371 users through Explicit Multicast= 250,239MB
((700 000 000 / (1 500 - 16 - (4 * 370))) * 1 500) / (1 024 * 1 024) = 250 339.508
Im not particularly a math wizz, plus I don't have my wonderful TI-89 on me right now. Now at such a high (370) destination IPs, it becomes nearly useless to do explicit multicasting, with traditional group multicasting we wouldn't have any of these problems, since you only need to send to "1" IP, and the internet will magically route it to everyone "behind" that 1 IP. But the current internet's multicasting is broke and unusable by masses. The insane overhead might be more practical with smaller groups, since there will have to be somewhere a cutoff between putting destination IPs in the headers and doing group multicasting. 190 destination IPS doesn't look bad.
((700 000 000 / (1 500 - 16 - (4 * 190))) * 1 500) / (1 024 * 1 024) = 1 383.0912 MB
1400MB to send 700MB to 190 people. Not bad at all when unicasting it would be 133000MB (190*700).
Also there would have to still be a TCP channel/traditional p2p to clean up/patch up after all the lost packets, so this would just make bittorrent extremely fast, since a 1 uploader can feed 200 users from only 2x more upload. Another problem would be, if the uploader is uploading faster than the peers can download the multicast stream, meaning alot of packets would be missing, to whatever % your download is slower than the uploader's upload speed. But then again, most broadband connections are asymmetrical, so there wouldn't be a problem usually. Even then, other peers can look at their view of the swarm, and the rarest pieces can be multicasted up, and then the peers play patching duty (TCP unicast chunk transfers).
Also jumbo ethernet frames might help since we wont be limited to 1500 byte packets. But, as I type this I realise, any network core changes, such as group multicast, and explicit multicast, and Jumbo Frames, chance of those ever being repaired, ZERO. You can hope for something better in IP6, since that will be a generational upgrade, but think of all the routers and IP equipment there already, upgrading will be impossible, period.
In the end, for bittorent, multicasting would decrease traffic, but it can't fix all the problems, ISP caching would be much easier to implement, or just have mega ISP servers act as peers, and firehouse each torrent with uploading, so no peer ever needs to upload again, but then again, what about the downloading strain?
So yeah, the only solution is, upgrade or die. And die is what American ISPs decided (except for Verizon). Throttle, cap, terminate, never upgrade. | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to ftth_freak
You should get out of the business. Customers should be allowed to run servers, it is what empowers the internet. It may be your network, and you may be paying for bandwidth, but customers are paying you for service, which you seem to want to not have to provide.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to ftth_freak
said by ftth_freak :Thats a typical liberal reply..."I'll sue you" Typical right-wing response...
Like I said, just do your customers a favor, loosen up or go out of business. | |
shudder
@uiuc.edu
| reply to Markus
I really hope you realize that the Internet should never be anything like television. Television is a passive one way communication device. It funnels crap down to the end users, with very little interaction. Part of the reason the Internet is popular is that is is a TWO WAY communication channel. You can put whatever you want online, relatively easily. The power of the Internet is on the edges, on our PC's. Not being streamed down from one central control station.
I pray the Internet NEVER turns into television. | |
|
